Remember AAA Airlines - Whatever happened to the Principles?

[TIMMEEEE]

Was just reading an ancient article about the aborted upstart airline AAA Airlines back in the early nineties.

I also remember 4 Corners doing a real expose on them, describing those senior members to be charlatans no less and pointing to alarming discrepancies in their qualifications and backgrounds compared to what was advertised.

A also recall a number of people losing alot of money with this mob, ranging from pilots that paid money for endorsements (and never got them) through to flight attendants that paid money upfront for their jobs also.
Pilots (second officers) were to be multi-skilled and working as flight attendants/baggies also I recall.

Did these people ever get their money back and what has happened to those at the top of the food chain that were in control?

Maybe it could have worked and sounds similar to Impulse but with older equipment.

[James4th]

Yes, two of my good friends lost a lot of money in AAA. Do you know that the prime mover of that aborted airline is now very high up in CASA???!!!?????

But that doesnt surprise me!

[Air Ace]

Yup. The man with the unregistered Jaguar in the 4 Corners article - if memory serves me correct - is currently doing very well in CASA. Even used to be responsible for all those trick ATPL questions.

When the dollar was worth a buck, think they collected $50 grand for a command and $25 grand for an FO/baggie/hostie, plus buy your own endorsements.

There's many a dark secret in the CASA staff closet!!!

:}

[James4th]

When I interviewed for AAA, I noted in their glossy brochure that they were going to use "McDonald (sic) Douglas DC9s"!!!!! And not only that:- the wings on the nice DC9 model on the desk were glued on upside down!

Needless to say I went to the nearest pub and drowned my sorrows............

[tipsy]

The last time I came across this person now in CASA he was was a bit of a star in the compliance area, a bit like putting Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank I suppose.:ok:

tipsy
:yuk: :yuk:

[Creampuff]

So at least give us the initials of the CASA person.

And TIMMEEEE, was your use of “principles” rather than “principals” an intentional irony?

[James4th]

I am not sure that it is irony: but a clever play on words anyway.

[James4th]

The censor wont even let me reveal his initials, sorry, I tried.

Anyway ask around, you'll soon find out his name. If you ever meet him, look him in the eye, as I did, and say "Hello *** havnt seen you since AAA days!" and watch the reaction.

"Revenge is a dish best eaten cold."

[1013]

No need to name the individual, as I'm sure that 4 Corners flogged it enough.

Trying to start an airline, claiming that he couldnt afford to have his Jaguar fixed let alone fill the tank with gas (in 1990) as well as being a former bankrupt.
Now that's the sort of person CASA would want!!

Well people, some kind soul just messaged an internet reference to a court case back in 1992-93 whereby this individual was taken to court, lost, subsequently appealed and lost again.

In closing statements the appelate judge stated, "this whole episode refects poorly upon the credit of Mr 8@(+$c*".

Further more said individual was ordered to pay $248,232.95 as well as court costs for the appeal.
From what I read a possible further $136,587.48 was payable also.

This individual supposedly teaches aviation subjects at a certain NSW university also.
CASA must be dredging the bottom of the barrell or nobody else was willing to do the job.

Its not hard to work out who he was and the really good thing is that he, or probably his office staff read this website !

[Creampuff]

I'm aware of a Federal Court judgment that says, among other things:…
74. I formed an unfavourable view of Mr X in the witness box. He is, as his degrees in science and law suggest, an intelligent man, but in my view was prepared to give evidence which at the very best was a half truth and was prepared to shift ground in his evidence when the occasion appeared to suit him.

75. An affidavit of Mr Y had been prepared in the proceedings detailing the expenses and income of the APTC course. That affidavit referred to amounts expended in payments to the Civil Aviation Authority for student examination fees. On the first day of hearing before me, reference was made to a subpoena issued by the applicants to that authority. The significance of that was obvious both to Mr X and to Mr Y.

76. It emerged that when students had paid examination fees directly to the Authority, cheques were drawn on the account of APTC conducted by the fifth respondent to cash. In those written by Mr Y, the cheque butts were originally left blank. Some cheque butts had been completed showing a payment to the Authority. A number of these cheques were written by Mr X, who initially denied this. The proceeds, some $29,292 were distributed to Mr X and Mr Y. Mr Y agreed that in swearing a second affidavit in which the Aviation Authority moneys were treated as management fees to Mr X and himself, he had been influenced by the knowledge of the subpoena and had thereafter discussed the matter with his counsel. He was aware that the affidavit was untrue and, in my view, was prepared to lie because he did not believe that he would be caught out. He did say that he believed that he would in any event have changed that evidence, but I find this difficult to accept.

77. Mr Y, after learning of the subpoena and after discussions with his counsel, had a conversation with Mr X in which he told Mr X that he proposed to allocate these cash funds to management fees. According to his evidence, Mr X agreed. Mr X claimed not to have seen Mr Y's affidavit and to have been unaware that he had filed a second correcting affidavit. Indeed, he claimed not to have been aware of the first affidavit at the time.

78. This whole episode reflected badly upon the credit both of Mr X and Mr Y. But there were other matters that were also damaging to the credit of Mr X. He was shown a document of projections of profits of the APTC business which was given to a bank manager in connection with a loan to purchase a house in August 1989. That document showed a contemplated profit mark-up on the APTC course of $3,050 per student. Mr X denied knowledge of the document. Mr Y deposed that it had been produced to the bank manager and discussed at a meeting at which Mr X was present. I have no doubt that Mr X was not telling the truth in respect of this matter and that Mr Y was.

79. In cross-examination Mr X was shown videos of television interviews conducted with him by three national programmes concerning his involvement in the promotion of AAA Airlines for an aviation licence to carry passengers within Australia. Mr X's answers to the interviewers' questions were inconsistent, particularly as to the amount of capital that had been secured overseas. That material was not, of course, on oath, but hardly gave substance to Mr X's claim to be believed, particularly when in cross-examination he asserted the truth of what he had said in each interview.

80. In addition, counsel for the applicants referred to an informal prospectus for AAA Airlines in which Mr X was featured as being a "qualified lawyer". In one sense he was, as he did have a law degree, although it may be said that the expression "qualified lawyer" suggests someone who is qualified to practise. In various places Mr X described himself as a Qantas pilot or second officer. The fact of the matter was that he was employed by Qantas as a trainee pilot but failed to pass an examination on a flight simulator. His employment with Qantas was subsequently terminated although he later passed the flight simulator examination. He was never re-employed. While the correspondence left scope for argument about Mr X's status, it was, in my opinion, misleading of him to describe himself as having been employed by Qantas as either a pilot or second officer.

81. Mr X was also shown on the promotional video as saying that until recently he had never flown a plane larger than the plane depicted, when he had trained on planes considerably larger with Qantas. Whether there is in the aviation industry a distinction between flying a plane under instruction and flying it as a licensed pilot as Mr X asserts is little to the point. At the best, the statement was a half truth. In the promotional video for Axis, taken in part it will be recalled from the Avtex video, Mr X talks of "we at Axis" as he had in the previous version spoken of "we at Avtex". He had no connection at all with Axis, other than as a licensor of the ACE system, and his attempts to justify the use of the first person plural are but another example of the difficulty in accepting his evidence.

82. Mr X's evidence was contradicted by Mr Y on other matters that had relevance to the case. This was notwithstanding that they had, as they admitted, got together to prepare the evidence in the case and to jog each others [sic] recollections. In saying this I do not suggest that they put their heads together to concoct false evidence or that there was anything improper in their discussing the case beforehand to prompt recollection of events that had occurred some time before. Mr X's evidence, that he had provided his lecture notes to the lecturers to prepare the workbooks, a highly relevant matter on the copyright issue and disputed by all lecturers, is another pointer to the difficulty of accepting his evidence.Mr X's real name (which is stated in the publicly-available judgment) is identical to that of a senior CASA officer. Are you suggesting they are one and the same?

[James4th]

Well I dont think it is one of those strange and wonderful coincidences..................:p

[Whiskery]

Correct James. It is definitely NOT one of those strange and wonderful coincidences !:E

[Creampuff]

The Court’s findings in relation to Mr Y’s credibility weren’t so scathing as those in relation to Mr X’s, but they were nothing of which to be proud.

I was surprised to note the real name of Mr Y (which, like that of Mr X, is stated in the publicly- available judgment) is identical to that of a current director of an organisation which claims to represent the interests of pilots and aircraft owners. Are Mr Y and that director one and the same?

[James4th]

Excellent work Creampuff, take a promotion to Vanilla Slice!

I like the way you work. Lets keep it going.

I always thought there was something very strange about Mr X, apart from the obvious that is, now I know.

Cheers,

James

" When we practice to deceive, Oh what a complicated web we weave.":E

[J430]

Where do you find these reports?

J:ok:

[TIMMEEEE]

Thanks Creampuff.

Just read the report and for the love of Christ cant believe that a govt organisation would ever consider employing this twit that was described as a judge as being of poor character!

As for those that did their hard-earned dollars through that AAA mob, did anybody manage to get their money back and was legal action ever taken to fight these charlatans?

I remember seeing some kid from Darling Point being interviewed on channel 9 back in the nineties, having borrowed $25,000 from his grandfather to pay for his DC-9 rating and quoting "AAA is the greatest thing to ever happen to aviation in this country".

I wonder what ever happened to this guy and whether he feels the same about you know who?

When will people learn never to trust grubs like that.

[Lodown]

I wonder what ever happened to this guy and whether he feels the same about you know who?

He keeps turning up with stars in his eyes to pay his money for that airline job. Just a different face.

With the person in discussion, it's not what you know, but who you know.

[Beer Can Dreaming]

Woomera, would it be possible to refer to the transcripts of Court cases relating to the main individual of AAA Airlines to give an idea as to the character of this person?

Bare in mind individuals that were lent money to invest in AAA caused relatives to lose homes and businesses.
The thing never even got off the ground and still many are left in the wilderness nursing crippling debts.

AAA Airlines is given a direct reference along with a Judges estimation of this individuals character.

Your thoughts on the high court references Woomera without mentioning names?

[Sunfish]

Step 1: Google Federal Court of Australia.

Step 2: Click on "judgements".

Step 3: Click on "Database Search".

Step 4: Enter "aaa airlines" in the boolean query search box without changing anything else.

Step 5: Click on search result and start reading................

Step 6: Go back to step 3 and search for the name of alleged main culprit. Read about the appeal.

Search Casa website. Assume its a coincidence or anyway it's all water under the bridge.

[Woomera]

Beer Can Dreaming

It seems Sunfish has preempted my comment.

In answer to your query, anything on the public record that refers to or is material to the avation industry and the individuals who operate within it is available, including those named therein, to be referred to on PPRuNe with the obvious exceptions of libel, slander, innappropriate behaviour or of a pornographic nature.

It is a nonsense for us to "censor" publicly available court documents.

This, however, should not give license to gratuitous slagging or vilification of any individuals.

The actions of those mentioned can be judged on the publicly available evidence.

In this particular case it should be sufficient to point to the judges findings in the cases mentioned.

It is also a matter of natural justice that selective quotes without the context of the entire judgement may be prejudicial to the parties named.

For this reason we would prefer that the URL is published here, (as you did previously) rather than the whole schlemiel which takes up bandwidth and further requires us to check to see that it is all there.

If the readers can't be bothered to read the whole thing and get the whole story, then they do not have the right to comment on it.

We are not here to protect anyone beyond the aforementioned and within the bounds of PPRuNe rules.

[James4th]

As far as I am aware no pilot that invested money in AAA ever got a cent back. If anyone knows any different pray tell us. I am also not aware of any legal challenge to AAA from anyone.

Wouldnt it be nice to hear Mr X's side of the story; what he had planned and how it all turned to dust; and where the money went to?

At least A$750,000 came from airline pilots around that time that I knew personally; some of whom actually did some office work for him.

Read the court report ........... and wonder.......

Cheers,

James

[Woomera]

For the record and lest some of the conspiracy brigade don their tin foil hats, the following comment by Creampuff should not be construed in any other way than intended.
I was surprised to note the real name of Mr Y (which, like that of Mr X, is stated in the publicly- available judgment) is identical to that of a current director of an organisation which claims to represent the interests of pilots and aircraft owners. Are Mr Y and that director one and the same?

A reading of the entire transcript will show that Mr Y, in the judges opinion acquitted himself such that Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated, I accept the versions of conversations adduced in evidence by Messrs A, B and Y where
those versions differ from the evidence given by Messrs X and Z.

[tipsy]

I understand the use of initials is regarded as a no-no, so I won't do it, besides it may cause unneccessary confusion with the likes of Sir Richard Branson etc.

However there is a publically available and widely used website that is for aviation industry edification.

http://www.casa.gov.au/corporat/orgchart/atg_field.htm

tipsy:ok:

[Beer Can Dreaming]

It amazes me that these individuals that took literally hundreds of thousands of dollars from the innocent remain unpunished.

So the ringleader from that circus runsoff and joins not only CASA, but to really top things off teaches aviation law type subjects at university and even writes a book about the law no less!
What a joke. You'd reackon he'd be able to win his own court case with all those degrees but this clown even got a pasting from the Judge.
When the judgement was passed against this sad individual he uses his legal skills to appeal and fails hopelessly after losing even more money.

If it was me, I'd have their names published by the media and expose these grubs for what they really are........liars, cheats and thieves that prey off others, deceive the general public, ruin peoples lives and walk away with inpunity.
I would make their life a misery and have them looking over their shoulder every moment.
Its the only way scum like that learns that they cant ruin peoples lives, take their money and not even give an explanation or apologise.

Some sort of manager with CASA eh????
As they say the SH1T floats to the top.

Lets see if this sad individual has the guts to reply and explain where all the money went, but I doubt it.

[tail wheel]

AVLAW (http://www.avlaw.com.au/team.php)

...........................